## Facts

- Jeffrey Alexander Sterling, an African American former covert CIA Operations Officer, alleged race discrimination and retaliation during his CIA employment (1993–2001).
- He claimed CIA managers held him to higher performance expectations than similarly situated non–African American officers and denied him advantageous operational opportunities.
- He alleged disparate treatment in work plans, assignments, and evaluations, and retaliation after he pursued an internal EEO complaint, including allegedly accelerated security processing that could affect his access and employment.
- The government formally invoked the state secrets privilege through a classified declaration by the Director of Central Intelligence asserting that litigating the claims would risk disclosure of classified information concerning CIA operations, personnel, and methods.
- The district court dismissed the action because the privileged information was necessary to litigate the claims and defenses without jeopardizing national security.

## Issues

1. Whether the state secrets privilege required dismissal of a Title VII discrimination and retaliation suit where adjudication would necessarily risk disclosure of classified CIA operational information.
2. Whether the case could proceed using protective measures (e.g., in camera proceedings, redactions, summaries, or substitutions) without compromising national security and without unfairly impairing either party.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Sterling’s complaint.
- The court held the state secrets privilege was properly invoked and supported by an adequate executive declaration.
- The court concluded the classified information was central to both Sterling’s ability to prove discrimination/retaliation and the CIA’s ability to defend.
- The court rejected proposed procedural devices as insufficient because the case’s factual core was intertwined with classified operational details.

## Legal Principles

- The state secrets privilege, when properly invoked and sustained by the court, bars disclosure of information where there is a reasonable danger that litigation would expose matters harmful to national security.
- When privileged information is not merely relevant but indispensable to establishing a prima facie case or mounting a defense, dismissal may be required rather than piecemeal exclusion of evidence.
- Courts give substantial deference to executive assessments of national security harm while independently assessing whether the privilege claim is adequately supported and whether the information is central to the litigation.
- Protective orders, in camera review, redactions, or nonclassified substitutions do not allow a case to proceed if they cannot preserve both national security and a fair adjudicative process.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that Sterling’s Title VII claims could not be litigated without exposing classified details integral to evaluating covert assignments, comparators, and performance-based decisions, and therefore the state secrets privilege compelled dismissal of the suit in its entirety.


Sterling v. Tenet, 416 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2005)